Cycling: Is it time to swap four wheels for two?

[NorthernSky]

article from The Inquiry.
Cycling: Is it time to swap four wheels for two?

they are preaching to the converted with me
if they put the infrastructure there for me i will cycle it!

 

[Oldhippy]

Very interesting, listening now.

 

[mjr]

Also available as a download on https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct98pj or podcast feed on https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p029399x/episodes/downloads if you don't want to deal with BBC's stalker "Sounds" service.

 

[mjr]

Unsurprisingly, the BBC's answer is "No". Here's the outro:

"Few doubt the advantages of two wheels in terms of our health and the environment, but there are considerations that have to be taken into account, including how to keep everyone on our roads safe and whether electric cars are an answer to those who want greener forms of four-wheeled transport. Oil price instability like we have now hits motorists hard and inevitably leads to people considering alternatives, but one thing has emerged from what we've heard and that is that cycling isn't a solution for all people everywhere: for those in rural areas, for the elderly, for some disabled people, cars cannot be dispensed with. At least, not yet."

There are so many things wrong with this podcast, including that motorists are the biggest reason why some roads aren't safe, motorists are also inhaling the pollution that the report only mentions affecting cyclists (contrary to other reports that motorists sat in queues with their cabin air intakes close to the exhaust of the vehicle in front actually inhale MORE pollution than people walking or cycling just metres away, let alone on greenways) and that some of "the elderly" and "disabled people" that they're disingenuously appealing for in their penultimate sentence are not able or not allowed to drive anyway.

It feels like the BBC decided the answer and then structured a show to reach it. I can't recommend it. The Bike-Bashing Campaign is alive and well.

 

[classic33]

@NorthernSky, I'm on four wheels, at times, when I cycle.

 

[Punkawallah]

@NorthernSky, I'm on four wheels, at times, when I cycle.

Admittedly much less worrisome than you admitting you are on two wheels, at times, when driving.

 

[Punkawallah]

Probably not. But you could argue for a reduction in four wheel travel. Or increase rail travel - but it would be a lot easier in the South, where Dr Beeching spared more lines.

 

[Bristolian]

It was an interesting, thought provoking, podcast. Personally, I made the decision at the beginning of the year to use the bike for any journey of less than 5 miles (each way) unless it was impractical. By impractical I am thinking of needing to carry a heavy/bulky load or needing to take the wife with me. On her part, she has started to use her mobility scooter for short shopping trips too. We are fortunate that we have a shopping precinct about half a mile from home with no need to cross busy roads to get there, in fact it can be reached on shared pathways.

 

[Andy in Germany]

... one thing has emerged from what we've heard and that is that cycling isn't a solution for all people everywhere: for those in rural areas, for the elderly, for some disabled people, cars cannot be dispensed with. At least, not yet."

Quite right. This isn't possible:

It feels like the BBC decided the answer and then structured a show to reach it.

From memory, that's normal for the BBC. Their interpretation of "unbiased" seems to be to support any opinion currently in vogue.

 

[Oldhippy]

I'm sure I've said this before but the UK is so far behind many other nations as well as using outdated arguments that have been proven incorrect time and again by motoring organisations in many other nations. They are shouting louder and have more influence whereas pretty much all cycling advocacy organisations are charities, never seem to combine forces to try and alter the landscape.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

cycling isn't a solution for all people everywhere

Neither is driving.

 

[mjr]

Neither is driving.

and yet, no councillor ever loses their seat for only providing for driving. Such as moving a tip (household waste recycling centre) out of town to a location with infrequent bus service half a mile away, then acting surprised that fly tipping has increased in the more car-free areas of town!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Indeed.

The phrase I quoted from the BBC is the stock answer from those who aren’t interested in the huge benefits of human-powered transport, even for other people.

Why does any suggested alternative to more cars have to be perfect?

Give people the infrastructure which will allow them to choose how to travel. Transport options shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Why does any suggested alternative to more cars have to be perfect?

Give people the infrastructure which will allow them to choose how to travel. Transport options shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.

Because if we judge a transport system based mainly on private motor vehicles by the same standards we judge every other form of transport, it would show how very ridiculous it is. It starts in the way spending millions per metre of motorways is handwaved as "investment", but spending on railways is "subsidy", and has to show a "return": if motorways had to generate a "return" they'd never be built.
In the same way a council that needs an excuse not to build a cycleway will demand an "environmental assessment" that that has standards any road would fail.

 

[mjr]

if motorways had to generate a "return" they'd never be built.

The M6 Toll and Severn motorway bridges say hello!